Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Jimi Xenidis <jimix@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com,
	Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Powerpc and software single step
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:30:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16194.42367.562777.115053@kitch0.watson.ibm.com>

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> >>>>> "DJ" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
>  DJ> On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:55:13AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
>  >> 2) Why is ``ppc_linux_single_step_mode'' an extern in tm-linux.h?  I
>  >> would really prefer that it be local to ppc-linux-tdep.c.  If
>  >> there's some compelling reason for it to not be local, then we can
>  >> discuss adding it to ppc-tdep.h.
> 
>  DJ> Could we do this slightly differently?  SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P is used
>  DJ> in two non-platform-specific files: infptrace.c for a sanity
>  DJ> check,
> This sanity check is wierd, does it expect PT_STEP to be defined _and_
> not supported?

It does happen.  MIPS/Linux does that sometimes, so does anything else
where PT_STEP is restricted or broken.

>  DJ> Why not add a hook to check there which lets the user use software
>  DJ> single step?  It'll require playing with the target macros; we'd need
>  DJ> something like:
>  DJ>   SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP - perform software single step
>  DJ>   SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P - SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP available
>  DJ>   SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_ONLY_P - no hardware singlestep available
>  DJ>     (check that in infptrace instead of SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P?)
> 
> I believe that this increases the complexity of the solution.
> On first inspection it looks like the proper solution is simply
> abstracting single step and let the code do the appropriate
> thing.. but that could easily break older targets that are not
> actively maintained, but I yield to senior heads on this.
> 
> My first attempt was to drag ppc/rs6000 into the gdbarch world and
> drop the #defines all together.  However, the test (_P) rotuine tests
> a function pointer and it was not readily apparent how to have a set
> command set a function pointer or actually run code to do so. Perhaps
> pairing it with a gdbarch boolean?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I actually left out something from my
example; above would be macros set by the architecture, and there would
be a USE_SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P that would be user controlled but
default based the architecture.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2003-08-20  2:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-08-12 22:31 Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-19 17:55 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-08-19 19:05   ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-19 19:13   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-19 22:32     ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20  2:30       ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-08-20  2:57         ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20  3:09           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-20  3:21             ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 13:07               ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-20 13:54                 ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-20 15:51             ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20 16:02               ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-21  3:48                 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 13:17                   ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-22 15:54                     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-22 17:32                       ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-08-22 18:20                         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-08 18:58                           ` Patch to eliminate SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP from ppc Was: " Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 19:00                             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-08 20:17                               ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 20:20                                 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-08 21:22                                   ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-08 22:01                                     ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 10:30                                       ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 15:30                                       ` AHAH! " Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 16:15                                         ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 17:01                                           ` Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-09 17:55                                             ` Kevin Buettner
2003-09-09 22:01                                               ` PATCH: Re: AHAH! Re: Patch to eliminate SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP Jimi Xenidis
2003-09-10  1:24                                                 ` Kevin Buettner
2003-10-10  2:40                                                   ` Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20  2:30     ` Powerpc and software single step Andrew Cagney
2003-08-20  2:33       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-21 14:01         ` Andrew Cagney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030820023005.GA1004@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=jimix@watson.ibm.com \
    --cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox